Shiva - Swaminarayan - Jesus

[imported_yasodanandana]

to the question "is that personality god?", you cannot answer "why not?... even jesus or krsna weren't recognized by everyone.." but for your spiritual health you have to try to be sure of the object of your worship.. and it is your duty, not mine..

 

life is short and human birth is very rare, we cannot waste it after someone choosen exclusively by sentiment..

 

 

[Guest guest]

Those in dvarika worshiped krsna as god,

some like dhoryodhana saw krishnas 4 armed formed and still didnt become a devotee.

 

vidhur bhishma vyas and other sages aswell as pandavas the residents of dvarika and mathura (not vrindavana as rasa was different) recognised krsna as god.

 

The treta yuga mantra mentions krishnas nmae a number of times thuus he was worshiped even before his arrival (actualy krishna killed an impersonator who dressed like krishna saying he was god)

 

Rama's kingdom knew he was god when rama finished his lilas he half of his subjects in ayodhya went with him and dissapeared in to the ganga.

 

Its nonsence to say that no one knew they were god during their time.

 

Krishna is also harsh in the gita where he calls the fools that worships other gods as those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires.

 

Either krishna is the supreme source of all incarnations where we should chant his names or the shikshapatri is full of lies. Take your pick.

 

[Guest guest]

Haribol Swaminarayan follower,

 

"It's irrelevant really, I go back to the point that God's advents are predicted in vedic scriptures - if not, we have no choice but to reject the claim made by the person who claims he is God."

 

Please address the point above, then we may continue discussion.

 

Hare Krishna,

Your Servant.

[Parabrahman]

hope this explains everything

 

http://www.gitamrta.org/swaminarayan.htm

[Guest guest]

I have been following this debate and i see no point to the hurls of abuses being thrown at all religions.

 

Both sampradays seem to have forgotten the meaning of Hinduism. Why should both leading sampradays from the Hindu religion be fighting each other, when they should be defending the hindu religion which is under attack from the other religions.

 

Let me give you the eternal truth of the Hindu religion.

 

Most of you must be knowing the origin of Hindu. the name came from the river Sindhu in NW India. Sindhu is a sanskit word meaning a vast expanse of water. Hindu is a vast, expanding and versatile religion.

 

Then nearly everyone seems to have misunderstood the meaning of Dharma (religion). The word Dharma comes from the word Dhar meaning hold. Religion is the power/cohesive force which holds the society/civilisation. It teaches us how to live with our family and society.

 

Now the coming to the main point i want to bring out. PLURALISM

It is a condition in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present within a society.

 

The other religions (christianity and islam) say that hinduism is not good as it has many Gods. well, why do we have so many Gods. the answer is, we dont have many Gods. we only believe in only one God. Its just one God with different names. In our religion, its you who decide how you want to see God. Our God will come to you in the form that you imagine him to be in. If you want to see him in the form of Krishna, he will come to you in the form of Krishna. If you want to see him as Swaminarayan, he will come to you as Swaminarayan. if you see him a friend, he will come to you as a friend. if you see him as a baby he will even come to you as a baby. So you see, He comes to you as you imagine Him. Now, you see how good and powerful our religion is! It allows everyone to see God as he wishes. And this applies to the Christians and Muslims as well, if they want to see Him as Jesus and Allah, then he will come to them in those forms.

 

And in this forum, i see absolutely why both sampradays are against each other when nearly all their principles are the same. We should learn to accept the validity of other religions. Pluralism helps other religions to come together as one in the world.

 

Well, thats what i wanted to share, and hopefully, this may help to solve the problem between not only this two religions but with other religions as well.

 

Jay Shree Krishna

Jay Shree Swaminarayan

 

 

[Guest guest]

discrimination is essential

[Guest guest]

"Its just one God with different names. In our religion, its you who decide how you want to see God. Our God will come to you in the form that you imagine him to be in. If you want to see him in the form of Krishna, he will come to you in the form of Krishna. If you want to see him as Swaminarayan, he will come to you as Swaminarayan."

 

We'll thats your philosophy, Krishna in the gita makes it clear that those that worship demigods have lost their intelligence, we follow krishna and the vedic scriptures not your imagination.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Heres a Q and A between A sanyasi in Iskcon

 

In Srila Prabhupada's purports, a few times he has commented upon the Mayavadi, or Impersonalists, in a way that to me sometimes seems very disparaging.

 

It¹s important to understand this within the context of Indian religious history, and not within the context of Western religious history. Here¹s the difference.

 

In India, we don¹t find a long history of bloody wars fought over religion. Indian religion has always tended to be inclusivistic, rather than exclusivistic. Thus the different ³religions² in Hindu culture tended to accept each other as valid but to view other schools as subordinate or preliminary to their own view.

 

Following this tradition, Srila Prabhupada often states that the impersonalists are ³bona fide transcendentalists² but that their impersonal understanding is subordinate or preliminary to Vaishnavism.

 

This is quite distinct from, say, declaring that impersonalism is simply false and evil. Robust theological debate flourished in India within a safe, multi-religious environment in which debate was not a precursor to war.

 

All this stands in marked contrast to the bloody fanaticism which often typified the European and Middle Eastern approach to religion. The early Chrisitian church developed the notion of ³true² and ³false² religions, ³living² and ³dead² gods etc. In time, this strident, fanatical view led to crusades, inquisitions, religious wars etc. This type of thinking, and the violence it fostered, never became prominent in India.

 

Today, much of the liberal, eclectic, ³all paths are the same² ethos in the West is a direct reaction to centuries of European and Middle Eastern fanaticism. Thus as in Newtonian physics, we have here an equal and opposite reaction which is far more tolerant, but equally fanatical in its own way.

 

In general, liberal thinkers in the West do not reason their way to the conclusion that all paths are equally valid. Rather they tend to hold their view more as an ethical principle than a philosophical conclusion, more as an antidote to fanaticism than a serious, logical description of ultimate reality. Coming from a tolerant, inclusivistic culture, Prabhupada does not feel the need to emphasize the relativity of spiritual views, but rather rigorously seeks the logical truth about God.

 

 

I understand the basics of the Impersonalist beliefs, and I know how Vaishnavism and Krishna consciousness are different from them. I, personally, prefer Vaishnava beliefs and bhakti yoga to worshiping a formless God. But I'm unsettled by anything that seems to be a value judgment against another religion.

 

A preference IS a value judgment. The problem here, apparently, is not making a value judgment but rather making it publicly. It is fair to say that both the personal and the impersonal aspects of God exist simultaneously. However it is not fair, or logical, to say that both the personal and the impersonal aspects of God are supreme simultaneously.

 

A soul who sincerely, earnestly seeks the highest truth has a ³right² to know what that ultimate truth is. If I actually know that God is ultimately a person, and I don¹t publicly say it, then I am consciously misleading or deceiving those persons who sincerely and unconditionally seek the highest truth.

 

 

If I prefer bhakti yoga and being lovingly devoted to Krishna but an Impersonalist prefers something different, then what's wrong with that?

 

It is not ³wrong², in a mundane moral sense to prefer the impersonal. In a sense every soul prefers whatever seems best to that soul. Prabhupada never teaches that impersonalists are evil souls, however he does give deep insights into metaphysical psychology.

 

If there is a personal God, and I am duly informed of this fact, and I choose to reject that personal God, it is not then ³wrong² for an enlightened spiritual teacher to analyze my motives in making that decision. After all, if there is a unique value in knowing

God¹s ultimate nature, then there must, logically, be a loss of value in not knowing that fact.

 

To avoid that monumental loss, Prabhupada, who actually has the ultimate good of all souls at heart, speaks the truth. We cannot a priori reject his words simply because he does not relativize all spiritual claims. After all, to relativize all spiritual claims is to negate all of them. Consider the following:

 

The personalists claim God is ultimately a person. The impersonalists claim the opposite. Now if you claim that personalism and impersonalism are the same, you are actually disagreeing with, and rejecting, the claims of both personalists and impersonalists.

 

So metaphysical egalitarianism is only apparently liberal and tolerant. Actually it resembles fanatical Christianity in that it ultimately rejects the claims of virtually all

historical religions through the act of relativizing and equating them.

 

 

I consider all these other approaches as very valid ways to understand God. I am attracted to Krishna very much now, and I am a very enthusiastic student of Krishna consciousness, and I think that approach is best for me, as it is for all the other Vaishnavas I know. But I don't think I can say what's best for anyone else. My nonjudgmental approach, I believe, helps me to be more skilled and compassionate in the psychotherapy I do with others. I hope to maintain that perspective.

 

As explained above, different paths make different claims. Many of these claims are valid, however validity and equality are very different concepts and should not be confused.

 

Krishna states in the Gita that He is the source of everything. This claim, logically, is either true or false. If it is true, then other valid views must be understood within the context of Krishna¹s statement. If Krishna¹s claim is not true, then even if we politely say that Krishna¹s claim is valid, it is still not true.

 

Similarly some Buddhists deny the existence of God. If their claim is true, Krishna¹s claim is false. If Krishna¹s claim is true, their claim is false. If we say both claims are true, we deny both paths, since both traditions reject the notion that both claims are true.

 

Buddhism certainly teaches much that is true in regard to human psychology and the temporary nature of the world. However the validity of this teaching does not validate the claim made by some historical forms of Buddhism that God and the soul do not exist.

 

The simple point here is that we should avoid both fanatical exclusivism as well as fanatical inclusivism. We should recognize the wisdom and validity present in many of the world¹s traditions, but at the same time we should have the courage and wisdom to seek, and speak, the highest truth without compromise.

 

With best wishes,

Hridayananda das Goswami

[Guest guest]

good to hear your abusive language.

 

as i know gita wasnt say anything like this.

 

i think if you belive in krishna i dont have any problem

 

but you need to understand geeta first.

 

thanks

[Guest guest]

so you believe in Krishna, thats great, you shall go to Golok and receive much happiness. So you believe in Swaminarayan, you will go to Akshardham and receive much happiness. GREAT!! But hang on, if you go to Golok, you will have to return to earth and do so again and again until you realise swaminarayan as supreme. Dont you see, the scripturs forecasted krishna. as well as many other incarnations, deities. They came to earth to kill demons - kans, ravan. Swaminarayan didnt require a forecast. He is God. He came to dispel maya from people's jivas and take them to Akshardham.

[Nrsinghadev]

"so you believe in Krishna, thats great, you shall go to Golok and receive much happiness. So you believe in Swaminarayan, you will go to Akshardham and receive much happiness. GREAT!! But hang on, if you go to Golok, you will have to return to earth and do so again and again until you realise swaminarayan as supreme. Dont you see, the scripturs forecasted krishna. as well as many other incarnations, deities. They came to earth to kill demons - kans, ravan."

 

I suppose by Golok you mean Goloka Vrindavan, which is the Supreme eternal abode of the Supreme Lord. A single quote from Bhagavad Gita is enough to refute the foolishness of your statement. B.G. Ch.15,v.6:

 

"That abode of Mine is not illuminated by the sun or moon, nor by fire/electricity. One who reaches it, never returns."

 

Futhermore you state:

 

"Swaminarayan didnt require a forecast. He is God. He came to dispel maya from people's jivas and take them to Akshardham"

 

Well what more needs to be said here, "hey, I am God, and because I'm God I don't need to be predicted in scriptures". Perhaps there was a vague reference in one single hymn of the Skanda Purana. The validity of our faith however isn't based on one single verse in a purana. Our teachings are constantly rooted in the scriptures and therefore authorative. I don't mind if you follow Swaminarayan's teachings or not,that's your business, but don't come here trying to preach Swaminarayan because it's like approaching the sun with a flaming torch, claiming yours is the original fire. Goodbye,

 

Hare Krishna!

[Guest guest]

Foolish rascals,

Explain why swaminarayana says that Krishna is the source of all incarnations, and also in another verse why his 2 handed form is superior to the many handed forms.

 

If swaminarayan wrote it just to cheaply attract people and its full of lies then throw it in the bin. Dont worship it as you do.

 

Y the harsh words? well in scriptures we have seen personalities like mahatma vidhur speak harsh words as some blind dimwits who cannot undertand unless presented in a clear striking way. You guys keep avoiding these points and go off in a tangent. Wafflers.

 

 

[Nitaichandra]

Have the Swaminarayan-followers a program for providing alimentation for the poor , the needy ?

Something like " Food for life " ?

 

And if yes , does it follow the guidelines of sattvic food ( vegetarian , no eggs , garlic , onions , mushrooms ...) ?

[Guest guest]

It doesnt matter if they do welfare work or not, the ultimate welfare work is to send the jive back to krishna. A rich man has a son, one day in your car u see the boy on the streets begging, should you ignore him? should u give him a loaf of bread, or should you take him back to his rich father. Giving the loaf and not sending him back to his father is just re-inforcing his illusioned state.

 

Swaminarayan followers follow the shiksapatri without your interpretations and word jugglery may be then your lives will be successful. If you dont want to follow it then be honest and chuck it away as lies.

[Guest guest]

In the Bhagavad-Gita, Lord Krishna states that those who do not accept him as the supreme are fools.

 

The Shiksapatri and Bhagavad-gita both state that Lord Krishna is the supreme. But the followers of swaminarayan don't follow his instructions. They are ignorant fools who will take birth in the animal kingdom for blaspheming Swaminarayan and Lord krishna.

 

[Guest guest]

Pramukh Swamin Maharaj is a person with spiritual devine power that we people don’t have and that’s why he is able to so many great things. He is not like fraud baba type of person but is a genuine saint and worth worshiped as GURU and there is no doubt about it. I believe him because I got his blessing and am doing well.

 

Only one thing I would to add here is that please don’t make GURU as GOD. I am sure that he being a spiritual person won’t like that the people treating him as GOD.

 

We being Hindu have sufficient gods so stop adding Guru’s as GOD. This is applicable to all the different sects existing in India.

 

NO BABA ANYMORE PLEASE. PRAY PRAY ONLY TO GOD.

 

Thanks,

 

[Guest guest]

BUT

Gurur brahma gurur vishnu gurur devo maheshwara

Guru saakhsaat par brahma tashmai shri gurve namah

 

Why do you say, not to take Guru as God ? Please explain.

[Guest guest]

Lets not take these guys like pramukh nor swami narayana who have no sufficient mention in scripture to be god, lets just take them as guru, lets not be sentimental and put them above krishna through word juglery even though swaminarayan clearly says he Krishna is the source of all manifestations and avtaras.

[Guest guest]

"When Lord Ram was here, how many people recognize him and consider him as Lord himself. I might ask the Vanars (Monkeys), but no human begin. Correct me if I am wrong. How many mandirs were there for Ram Bhagawan, None, It was not until his 8 or 9 the generation they built the mandir/temple? Whom did Lord Ram worship? I taking about his Estadev (God he did Puja)"

 

That isn't quite true. Sants Vashishta and Viswamitra knew that Ram and his brothers were the Lord Incarnate himself. The Valmiki ramayan says that they prophesised that temples of the oldest brother will be built and his history will continue to be remembered for thousands of years.

 

 

"When Lord Krishna was here on Earth, how many people recognized him? Only few people. There was no one was ready to believe in him. Whom did Lord Krishna worship? There were no mandir of Lord Krishna during his time. When Lord Krishna was giving the Updesh of Bhagwat Gita, and his divine form there were only two people were able to see him. One is Arjuna and Sanjay."

 

All the Pandavas knew the truth as did Bhishma and a lot of the elders of the kauravs. Draupadi and her children knew the truth. In fact there are accounts in the Mahabharat where Krsna states he is the supreme Lord of the universe.

 

 

"When Lord Swaminarayan was here about 225 ago (1781 - 1830 AD) who recognized him? Well the 500 parmhanso (500 saints) did. Yes, it is true that he talks about Lord Krishna as his Estadev. But according to my understanding, it is not right to do the puja of your self, even if you are god. His wrote in shikshaparti about Lord Krishna, but when you understand mahima about Swaminarayan sect., and then you will understand more."

 

Bhagwan does not need to do pooja to anyone. He is all knowing and infinite and so he does not need to do pooja.

 

"When god is present on this earth, we as human begin do not want to believe that. What if I say I am god, is anyone going to believe in me. NO. In say way, when bhagwan is here on earth no one wants believe that."

 

He did for all the other 24 avtaars including Krsna. So why couldnt we believe it for swaminarayan? If you would say you were god we would say you are a crack pot because you are not prophesised. All 24 avtaars were prophesised in many many scriptures but exact names. Not some minor reference that has been interpreted.

 

 

[Guest guest]

And if Swaminarayan is Lord of the universe then why does no one outside the sect believe this? However everyone including Sahjanand Swami accepts that Krsna is Parbhrama.

 

Also I take a lot of offense to the people who have doctered the Gita and replaced Krsna with Swaminarayan to create FICTIONAL stories!

[sumedh]

 

Gurur brahma gurur vishnu gurur devo maheshwara

Guru saakhsaat par brahma tashmai shri gurve namah

 

 

 

So without knowing the tattva some persons use such quotes to mislead everyone. A Guru is a direct manifestation of the svayam-prakash of the Lord (i.e. empowered by Sri Baladeva) and so is non-different from the Lord; he is a fully surrendered soul and so his desires and actions are actually Krishna's but this does not mean that suddenly one becomes vishnu-tattva from jiva-tattva. Srila Prabhupada has described this rascaldom of so many gurus all over. To understand this you may require much more time and a proper attitude, still i provide one of the (many) quotes of Srila Prabhupada on this:

 

So guru is the representative of God. Therefore the sastra says, the authority says, saksad-dharitvena samasta-sastrair. Guru is as good as God. Here, in this Vyasa-puja day, we are teaching or they are doing, offering respect to guru. That means they are learning how to offer respect to God. It is not personal affair; it is required. Because they are trying to be God conscious, they must learn how to offer respect to God or God's representative. That is required. Saksad-dharitvena samasta-sastrair. In all the sastra, Vedic literature, guru is described as good as God. But guru will never say that "I am God." The disciple's duty is to offer respect to guru as he offers respect to God. But guru will never say that "I am... Because my disciples are offering me respect as God, therefore I have become God." As soon as he thinks so, he becomes dog. He is no more God. Therefore Visvanatha Cakravarti says... Why guru is offered respect like God? Kintu prabhor yah priya eva tasya. Guru is offered the same respect as we offer respect to God. Just like in the morning. The other side, aratrika was going on, offering to Krsna, and this side was aratrika was going on to offer respect to the spiritual master. The same respect. But guru will never say, and he's not that. Guru will never say, "Now I have become God." No. God does not become. God is always God. So God is God and guru is guru. But, as a matter of etiquette, God is the sevya God, worshipable God, and guru is the worshiper God. Just try to understand. Worshipable God and worshiper God. This is. Sevya bhagavan--sevaka bhagavan. Just like guru is addressed: "Prabhupada." Prabhu means "the Lord" and . means "the position.One who has taken the position of the Lord." The same thing: saksad-dharitvena, prabhupada. These are the terms, one who is serious to study this science of God, they'll learn all these things. So one who is very serious to understand the science of God, for him a guru is required. Don't try to keep a guru as a matter of fashion, that it has become a fashion to accept somebody, some rascal as guru, and say that "I have got my guru." What kind of guru you have got? You are talking nonsense. Acaryavan purusa veda. One who has accepted guru, he'll talk sense, where there is meaning. He'll never talk any nonsense.

 

 

 

If you are serious then read this http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/gss/guru/what_is_guru.htm to get started with the nature of guru-tattva.

 

Hare Krsna

[Guest guest]

WHY FIGHT? SO WHAT IF YOU BELEIVE IN KRISHNA OR SWAMINARAYAN YOU HAVE FAITH RIGHT. AS LONG AS YOU FOLLOW THE RIGHT PATH OF GOD WITH PURE BHAKTI YOU WILL GET THERE. STUDY ALL RELIGONS AND BE FIRM WITH YOUR BELIEFS. BE HUMBLE AND PURE WITH COMPLETE SURRENDER TO THE LORD.

 

DONT KID YOURSELF TO BE A TRUE DEVOTEE JUST THE THOUGHT IS EGO.... GOD BLESS HARE KRISHNA, JAI SWAMINARAYAN

[Guest guest]

"WHY FIGHT?"

 

There is no fighting going on.

 

"SO WHAT IF YOU BELEIVE IN KRISHNA OR SWAMINARAYAN YOU HAVE FAITH RIGHT."

 

If you believe in Krishna it means you have faith in infallible Lord. If you believe in Swaminarayan it means you have faith in a fallible soul.

 

 

"AS LONG AS YOU FOLLOW THE RIGHT PATH OF GOD WITH PURE BHAKTI YOU WILL GET THERE."

 

The key is 'the right path'. The right path is delineated in Bhagavad Gita (18.66) give up all occupational duties and forms of religion and just surrender to Krsna.

 

 

"WITH COMPLETE SURRENDER TO THE LORD"

 

Yes, surrender to the Lord. The Lord is specified in the Vedas. Authorised names include Krishna, Rama, Vishnu and Narayana. Not Swaminarayan.

[Guest guest]

Why follow anyone when you can follow the only seen and proven god, Lord Krishna.

 

If you think folliwing any tom dick and harry is fine, then you are living in darkness.

 

Follow the scriptures, thus only follow Lord Krishna not swaminarayan or sai baba or kali or shiva or brahma or tom or dick or harry or jesus. Only Krishna, only krishna.

[Guest guest]

only krishna, meaning rama narashinga,vamana, narayana (not swami) any bonafide vishnu tattva mentioned in sastra not some imagination or some being your limited intelligence thinks is god. The sastras are meant for us in kaliyuga previously there was one veda but it was divided and written for the residence of kaliyuga, ignore the sastra the words of god ment for our guidance at your own peril.